Posted on 12/30/2024 7:37:45 AM PST by Lazamataz
Thank you for that link. It has a nice sampling of some of the rules Washington thought most important. The one about not being too quick to believe a disparaging report about someone - that sure rings true in the age of the internet. I would think his rule about not speaking ill of someone when they aren’t present would also fit the internet. Even if one is writing to them - they aren’t there in person. It is too easy to hide behind a keyboard to attack someone.
I don’t mind disagreements on FR. I rarely post on other media, and when I do it is just documented “facts” that I will post as points of information. And yes, knowing that facts are sometimes dubious. But often not.
When I first came on here , we were. We were a tight nit group. We might have different ideas of how to get from point A to point B. But we were civil to each other. But, man, there ain’t no being civil to a Zeeper.
-PJ
1st
Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.49th
Use no Reproachful Language against any one, neither Curse nor Revile.50th
Be not hasty to believe flying Reports to the Disparagment of any.
Be aware, we have people on the forum who are willfully defiant of this original post and the rules you published.
I’ve seen that they add little to the forum besides revilement and insults.
I may decide to undertake a campaign for their removal, or at least convince them to be more constructive in their participation.
I mostly leave those threads alone. There's a lot of conflict and no chance for resolution. Add in the fact that there are paid propagandists populating those threads, and there really is no upside in participating.
marcusmaximus is an interesting case study. It's quite obvious he's a paid propagandist who (used to) barely put any thought whatsoever in his posts. He'd bang out these cliches such as "What ____ doink?", "Tell your Putin ______", "Kiev in 3 days, bring your parade uniforms", and "____ stronk like bull.".
But, upon calling him out on that, I've noticed he actually puts a little effort into his posts now, and even posts articles about things other than Ukraine. Surprisingly, he and I actually got into a pretty good exchange once. I guess I can tolerate a propagandist who brings something other than pure propaganda to the forum.
But as far as going on those Uke/Russia threads? I see no point.
I don’t mind, terribly, the posters that post from ignorance or laziness. Hell, I’ve even been that poster from time to time, if my spare time is short.
What I *don’t* like are posters who are willfully disruptive to the forum. Examples are, those that have little to add to the conversation other than personal insults, or a person who is absolutely intolerant of another’s point of view, or a liberal who joins just to screw with us. Those folks can go to hell and I have undertaken many successful campaigns for their removal or restriction.
People will purposely throw red meat into a thread or purposely start a flame war with someone in order to pollute the thread with the back-and-forth of personal attacks and reproaches. The goal of this tactic is to cause the rest to drop out of the discussion in frustration and lose the opportunity to challenge and debate the pros and cons of an issue with each other.
The disruptor doesn't want the scholarly discussion of certain topics and will attempt to drive away anyone who seems to be bringing clarity and consensus to a topic.
Here is a FReeper article from 2006 called Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus [or How the Left builds consensus], posted from the Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly's conservative advocacy group). It discusses how group agitators can manipulate a group's thinking. The original article (with formatting) can be found in the Wayback Machine here.
See this YouTube video from 2011 that chronicles how the Delphi Technique was used in public comment meetings in the San Francisco Bay Area during the push to pass a unified mass transit and land use set of bills: Exposing the Delphi Technique in Public Meetings.
-PJ
FR reminds me of this old lawyer joke.
If a lawyer has the facts on their side, argue the facts.
If a lawyer has the law on their side, argue the law.
If a lawyer has neither the facts nor the law on their side, just argue.
You sound like a liberal cuck.
They can be fun to play with for a minute. It’s like pushing a button. Saying something along the lines of, “I am opposed to my tax dollars being sent unaudited to a known money laundering operation” causes them to start barking and screeching, “Putin puffer!” “Pro Russian!” “Communist!” “Bolshevik!” and other such nonsense. It really *is* amusing. Downright Pavlovian.
They become boring and repetitive pretty quickly and that’s when I dismiss them by allowing them the last word.
But they are amusing for brief interludes.
And AMorePerfectUnion has a Zeeper Follies ping list with hilarious graphics.
The funniest part is that zeepers don’t know that they’re the entertainment.
Both are being abused and both can be reformed.
No. What I have been saying is the visa program has been abused and President Trump can fix it along with curtailing illegal immigration. It's not either/or.
I am not a modern day liberal in any way.
As for the cuck, I have been married to my beautiful trophy wife for fifty years, with never a chance of being cucked. I cannot but think about the irony of Laz starting this thread asking for an improvement on "The Tone and Tenor of Free Republic (vanity)", and you respond to my comment with such invective.
Put some ice on that.
Shut down the border, H1B SQUIRREL!
I’d hit that.
I would hope so!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.